Change Your Image
reclined
Reviews
Halloween (2018)
Not what we hoped for
3/10 stars only- 1 for the title sequence, 1 for the classroom window-scene throwback, and 1 for the old "figure outside the stall" trick. Everything else seemed half-baked.
The Shallows (2016)
Great summer movie
We really enjoyed this one-- it has suspense without gore, incredible cinematography, and a memorable buddy-character that almost outdoes Wilson from Castaway. The ending might be a little more sudden and random than what you wold expect, but it works within the just-under-90 minute running time.
I wouldn't recommend it for kids younger than 10, as the climactic scenes might be a little too intense for them and as the main character lets out one f-word as she tries to scare the shark away. However, it doesn't have the gore you might expect in a film of this genre, and the rest of the language is fine, so it's definitely family-friendly for tweens and up.
Maleficent (2014)
more like "malevolent" (to the original)
The closing credit's lazy version of the classic "Once Upon a Dream" theme-song actually echoed how I felt after leaving this movie: drained and disappointed.
If the movie is billed as a prequel of sorts to the original or at least Maleficent's version of the story, there are too many plot-holes and disappointments.
I'l start though, with its few redemptions:
1.) It's nice to see a maternal relationship between Maleficent and Aurora, but it makes no sense compared to the original storyline.
2.) The few minutes of screen time we have for the 3 fairy godmothers are enjoyable.
3.) The relationship between Maleficent and her raven-like servant is entertaining at times.
4.) It's nice to see that Prince Philip (as poorly as he is casted) doesn't just get to have the princess at the end of the story. Again, though, this makes no sense compared to the original.
Now the bad...
1.) The backstory of how Maleficent becomes evil and vengeful before Aurora's coronation misleads the audience into thinking that the Aurora part of the story will have some kind of connected flow to the original. It clearly doesn't.
a.) In the original, a major conflict is Maleficent's inability to locate Aurora's sanctuary in the forest. In this adaptation, Maleficent finds her right away. So much for the 16th-birthday suspense in the original.
b.) King Stephan quickly but very inexplicably devolves from a father to a tyrant in the new movie. If his long-lost daughter returns to him after 16 years of exile, wouldn't he be a little happier to see her and not just lock her away (a la Rapunzel) in a castle room?
c.) The forest-meeting between Prince Phillip and Aurora makes much more sense in the original. He was at her coronation and knows "once upon a dream" that they will be together. In this newer adaption, he just finds her by "getting lost" in the forest.
How can he do that when Maleficinet has placed an "impenetrable" thornbush-wall around the entire Moorsland which even the king's best guards can't enter?
d.) Maleficent's magic can put anyone to sleep on a moment's notice. Why, then, when she is freed from the iron net in the castle-battle does she not place a quick spell upon the king and guards once she arises (by replaced wings) to escape them more easily?
e.) She also has a perfect opportunity to create her goblin-like guards (from the original) from the soldiers who try to burn down her thornbush-wall, but that would then, of course, require her to actually use them to help her find Aurora as in the original. These guards work well on a comic-relief level in the original, but no need for them here?
2.) Teenage Aurora arguably looks and sings much more like an adult in the original, but the new casting choice for Aurora looks and sounds much more juvenile than that. If the "Once Upon a Dream" song and dance is such an iconic part of the original, Disney really misses that opportunity by poor casting here. The girl doesn't sing nor dance.
3.) Again, very minimal screen time is given to the 3 fairy godmothers. If they are the protectors of Aurora in the original and are the most entertaining ones in the story (remember the pink/ blue battles?), why on earth do they get such little inclusion here? It just becomes a dramatic convenience for Aurora to feel closer to Maleficent as her "actual" fairy godmother, I guess. Cute idea, but too far from the original.
4.) I should leave a Disney movie (or at least a Disney adaptation) feeling nostalgic for and still connected to the original-- not disappointed that the adaptation is so far removed from the original storyline.
Maybe the filmmakers are hoping for an audience who hasn't seen the original Sleeping Beauty and who will therefore be too naive to notice the difference. However, they could have done a much better job with the storyline's logic, the casting choices, and the overall connectedness to make the audience feel that investing in or looking back at the original would be a happy and fun thing to do-- not a personal mission to prove to themselves why you still can't beat the original.
Hotel (2001)
A four ring (okay, square) circus?
Certainly one of the strangest films I have seen in a long time, Hotel is also one of the most engaging, initially. It walks a tightrope between real intrigue and absolute garbage, mixes in an almost-documentary on a production-in-progress of The Duchess of Malfi, and works as a name-that-celeb game for awhile.
As the film progresses, though, it sort of disintegrates into a very surreal montage of out-of-body experiences, absurdist theatre and out-of -focus film-making. The camera trick of showing us a windowpane of 4 scenes at the same time almost works the first time as a curiosity piece of how these scenes are related but eventually becomes a trite way for the filmmakers to regain our attention after so many dull scenes of hospital room, film set, etc.
At its best moments, Hotel keeps us guessing about who the next "course" will be (Malkovich? another "inmate?") for the basement feast and about how that victim will meet their fate, but at its worst ones, we're forced to wade through so many dead-end subplots to then wonder if the filmmakers remember what kind of intrigue they had initially created.
What starts as an interesting premise, then (of cannibalistic hotel staff meet self-righteous but ultimately vulnerable film crew), devolves into a kaleidoscope of minimal suspense amid dominating doldrums.
Don't bother worrying about catching every moment in the 4-paned scenes, then-- in the end, you're not really missing that much. Check out Hotel, but check out from it if you must. ;-)
Transformers (2007)
Like EPCOT, only louder
I heard awhile back that EPCOT center in Disneyworld is really the result of two different theme-park ideas really "pushed together" by Disney's Imagineers into one sort of impressive but over-reaching whole.
Okay-- now fast-forward about 20 years or so, and you have an explanation of how this film feels by its conclusion: 2 different segments linked together into one impressive but over-reaching whole.
Arguably, the film has two major "Acts." In Act I, we have our ultra-slick but geeky teen protagonist getting his first wheels and the hottest too-old-for-high-school-but-we'll-buy-it-anyway-girlfriend in recent film history, and the focus seems to be a humorous one. Teenage lives are "complicated" enough, we're reminded, but the mix of new car, new girl, and old, suspicious parents works here to lighten up the complexity of how Bumblebee and Co. are going to figure in to the rest of the story.
Then, Act II: Autobots and Decepticons really "taking it to the streets" in urban combat. Loud and louder chaos ensues, as we're forced to figure out exactly which Transformer is taken out by its enemy (I guess there's just too many silver-colored ones on both sides). The focus now is upon the intensity and excitement we feel at seeing robots smash each other up at eardrum-busting decibels. Where's the humor of Act I? Never mind, just duck and cover (your ears?) for now.
If you're willing to suspend reality for awhile (like the existence of a super-secret "Sector 7" government agency that even the military doesn't know about, that Hoover Dam was originally built to cage Megatron (uh, duh!-- why not just build a smaller, cheaper, and much more isolated base atop the polar ice cave where they first found him?, etc)), you'll enjoy the show. If you like more continuity in your action-adventure flicks (like humor and/ or action intensity throughout, then just watch either half of the movie, and you'll be fine.
Transformers is still the best action film out this summer-- just bring your patience. Oh, and your earplugs, too. ;-)
1408 (2007)
Best film so far this year
Wow! What a great tribute to earlier films like "The Shining" (with the snow, a writer really "losing it, " etc.), "The Amityville Horror" (bleeding walls, anyone?),"Groundhog Day" (with the existential radio music), "Poltergeist" (with a nearly inescapable interior), and even the old TV episodes of "The Twilight Zone" that force us to consider whether what we are seeing is reality or fantastic hallucination.
At the same time, it's also a tribute to Edgar Allan Poe-- a collapsible structure to rival the "House of Usher's," a protagonist as mad as the "Tell Tale Heart's," a painting of a ship that turns into a true "Descent Into the Maelstrom," a walled-in victim reminiscent of "The Cask of Amontillado" and a mental chase of sorts that's right on par with "The Man of the Crowd."
And yet, we never really feel as if Stephen King has really stolen too much here. Sure, the ax-wielding specter looks a little bit like the killer clown from "It," but there's enough here that seems fresh and innovative: a laptop that sends the room's requests instead of the tenant's, a throttling of a hospitality fridge instead of a hotel manager, and a real satiric sting on automated-voice systems.
Cusack is perfect in every scene except for a few. There's a revolving shot near the end where he makes a ridiculous "crazy" face before it bleeds into a more convincing "hear no evil" kind of pose, and his early vehemence after the window cuts his hand seems a little too abrupt for such a calm, cynical guy.
Great ideas here, though, to really begin the breakdown: the call to the window across the street only to have us shudder at its own reflections is classic, and the replaying of "We've Only Just Begun" as the room's sinister overture is brilliant as well.
The conversation between Cusack and Jackson in the manager's office is almost worth the price of admission alone and will leave us with a new catch phrase: "It's just an evil f---'n room."
Let's hope that the Academy remembers this one come next year-- I'd love to see a return to movies as truly eerie as this.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
The EPCOT approach to making a sequel?
I saw a documentary a few weeks ago about the making of EPCOT Center in Orlando. In it, the producers tell us that the Imagineers had two different plans for what EPCOT should look like, and in the end, they decided to just "push the two plans together" into one park.
Okay, now fast forward a few decades. Disney is pressed for what exactly to do in the blockbuster Pirates sequel, so they push together no fewer than 11 stories or subplots into one nearly three-hour film:
1.) Elizabeth and Will: "I do," or "Uh, let's wait on this, honey?" 2.) Jack Sparrow: the quest for Davy Jone's locker (okay, chest-- ha ha), the god among the natives, friend or foe (to Elizabeth and co.), etc., etc. etc. 3.) Will and Bootstrap (daddy): "Who loves ya, kid?" "I'll save you, dad." 4.) Davy Jones: she loves me, she loves me not; join us or die; this old heart of mine (ha ha); etc., etc. 5.) East India Trading Co.: Will and Elizabeth, we have a little favor to ask you... 6.) The Commmodore: wait till you hear what happened to me... 7.) The Governor: Oh, sweetie, just get on this easy boat to England... 8.) Tia Dalma: Now, which one of you two hunkies be cuter? 9.) The Krakken: No, it's my story! Watch me grab another boat! Ha ha! 10.) The key: No, I'm half (or more) of the movie! Ha ha ha! 11.) Pintell and Ragetti: We're back!
...and on and on and on.
Don't get me wrong, folks-- I really liked the movie. It just seemed a little over ambitious, story-wise. Half of these topics/ issues in half as much film-time would still have been great.
Disney folks, please: scale back the Pirates 3 one, okay? Those 40 oz. Cokes we buy in the lobby are just too tough on our bladders when you ask us to really focus on all of these plots and subplots past the two-hour mark, sorry. ;-)=
And please, don't even get me started on how repetitive (and derivative) some of this film's scenes seemed: Will and the Commodore's fight on the rolling millwheel is too similar to Will and co.'s rolling escape earlier in the skeleton ball from the natives, and Sparrow's own flight from the natives is easily stolen from Indy's dash from the Hovitos in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Sigh. ;-)
Dracula (1931)
Swan Lake still there?
Is the Swan Lake excerpt that plays during the opening titles from the original release still on the new (75th Anniversary) DVD?
If so, can I listen to that Swan Lake excerpt by choosing the "silent"-scene (i.e. the non Phillip Glass-scored) option on the new DVD?
I guess I just love the movie the way it was and would like to buy the new version for its careful restoration of the old print. Phillip Glass' score for Koyaanisqatsi is annoyingly jarring but really an essential part of the "crazy life"-effect in that film, but with Dracula, I'm a little bit old school-- leave the soundtrack (or what little there is of it) alone, and sure, give us the option of the Glass score only if we'd like to hear it that way.
Munich (2005)
Haunting, gutsy and brilliant.
Absolutely the most haunting and memorable film of 2005, if not of this century. I agree with Roger Ebert that Spielberg has very carefully and courageously placed our sympathies in this film between Israel and Palestine. However, I also feel that Spielberg simultaneously reminds us that our current "War on Terror" is not only unwinnable but also just part of a mankind's historical and hopeless cycle of pride, envy, murder and revenge. The latter task is a tricky one for Spielberg to pull off, but he does it so heart-wrenchingly in Munich without being terribly preachy about it. As in so many of his best films, here the action speaks so much louder than words.
Munich should have received every one of the Oscars for which it was nominated, and I would also like to have seen Eric Bana nominated for Best Actor and at least Geoffrey Rush nominated for Best Supporting Actor. It's hard, in retrospect, to imagine anyone else playing these roles so convincingly. Maybe Hollywood could someday add an ensemble category (as the Golden Globes do) for acting? Avner's team, like all the other characters, were so well cast in this film.
History may most remember Spielberg for Schindler's List, but our future is arguably more tied to Munich. What an incredible film to finally open up a dialogue upon such a crucial topic and to such a universal scale! Bravo, Mr. Spielberg! ;-)
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Best film of 2003.
An absolutely wonderful film, and yes, it should have taken Best Picture
honors over both Lord of the Rings (a sympathy vote from the Academy) and
Mystic River (too messy/ unresolved).
This film is proof that the sum of the parts are at times greater than the whole (or main plot). I've read several reviews that knock M&C for not being the action blockbuster they'd hoped for, but the film simply has a different kind of structure to it. It's more a series of vignettes (like Pulp Fiction) that might lead you to believe the climactic confrontation with the French Frigate is really the point of the movie (see PF's opening restaurant holdup), but by its conclusion, we''re reminded that the crews' personal moments are as telling of the times (if not more so) than the English vs. French battles at sea.
The scenes of the man-overboard dilemma, the doctor's own surgery, the midshipman's self-doubts, etc., are powerful and haunting long after the film's conclusion. The French captain's scheme near the end is a great discussion- starter (see the forum). The music is wonderful-- how cool to make classical music hip again! ;-)
Action-film fans may be disappointed to see this film is a little smarter than their typical audience might be, but drama, history and classics fans, enjoy! Weir's attention to detail here (and yes, even to nautical-story stock, at times) is highly commendable, Crowe's portrayal of Jack Aubrey is tough but respectfully experiential, and the cinematography of both land and sea is astonishing.
The conflict between the captain and doctor over the Galapagos-stop may not be entirely thrilling, but it does add a nice cultural and scientific backdrop to the Napoleanic-era fighting scenes.
See this film as soon as you can, if you haven't already. Then, call Hollywood and ask for a Best Picture (and Best Director) recall. ;-)